PAYEN AND TALBROS LIMITED Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 26th December, 1966 the Delhi Administration made a reFerence to the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, for the determination of the following issue : Whether the management of the petitioner-Company be required to introduce a Gratuity Scheme and if so, on what terms and conditions ?

(2.) The parties filed their pleadings before the Tribunal. In the written statement of the management, the following preliminary objection i was taken: "An appreciable or substantial number of workmen employed by the company have not espoused or supported the matter of dispute i under reference and the Union alleging to represent the workmen emjployed by the company has no locus stand! to represent them In fact, there is another Representative Union recognised by the Com- pany namely Payen-Talbros Employees Union (Regd ) which has j t entered into a number of long term and comprehensive settlements JL with the Company in the past regarding various demands of the ~ workmen, but it has not taken up this matter of dispute. The Hon'ble ^ Industrial Tribunal. Delhi, has also held that the Union alleging to represent in this case has no locus stand! to represent the Workmen . employed by the Company, in its Award dated 29th February, 1964 I . passed in 1. D. II of 1962. Under the circumstances, the dispute under reference is not an Industrial Dispute and this Hon'ble Tribunal ; has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the same".

(3.) This position was controverted by the workmen in the refoinder filed by them. Shri Hans Raj, Presiding Officer, Additional Tndustrial ' . Tribunal, Delhi, before whom the matter was pending framed the follow- ing issue: "Has the West Delhi Engineering Mazdoor Union no focus standi ?"